mitted by him after he has been brought back upon the extradition warrant until he has been allowed a reasonable time to return to the place from which he was taken. He contends that the duty originally resting upon the demanding country to try him only for the offense for which he was extradited and to then afford him reasonable opportunity to return, is unaffected by the fact that he committed another crime after his extradition.

The treaty of 1842, August 9 (8 Stat. 576, § 10), is the one in regard to which discussions as to its meaning have arisen. United States v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407. Subsequently to the treaty, Great Britain passed the extradition act of 1870 (32 and 33 Victoria, chapter 52); and also in 1873 an act to amend the extradition act of 1870 (36 and 37 Victoria, chapter 60). Both these acts are cited as the extradition acts of 1870 and 1873. See 1 Moore on Extradition (1891), pages 741, 755. In subdivision 2 of § 3 of the act of 1870 it is provided: “(2) A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered to a foreign State unless provision is made by the law of that State, or by arrangement that the fugitive criminal shall not, until he has been restored or had an opportunity of returning to Her Majesty's dominions, be detained or tried in that foreign State for any offense committed prior to his surrender, other than the extradition crime proved by the facts on which the surrender is grounded."

Article 3 of the treaty or convention of 1889, July 12, between Great Britain and the United States is to be found in 26 Stat. 1508-9, and is also, among others, set out in Johnson v. Browne, 205 U. S. 309, 319, as follows: "Article III. No person surrendered by or to either of the high contracting parties shall be triable or be tried for any crime or offense, committed prior to his extradition, other than the offense for which he was surrendered, until he shall have had an opportunity of returning to the country from which he was surrendered." The treatment of the criminal for all acts committed or said to have been committed by him prior to extradition is thus fully provided for.

The contention of the plaintiff in error that the duty to afford opportunity to return after a trial or other termination of the case upon which he was extradited is unaffected by any subsequent crime he may have committed, is not even plausible. Nothing in the Rauscher case (supra) is authority for any such contention. The duty to afford opportunity to return after trial, as stated, is limited to matters which happened before extradition, and in the nature of things such duty cannot be extended by implication so as to cover a totally different state of facts. Because, in some cases, in construing the treaty, it has been stated that a person extradited can be tried only for the offense for which he was surrendered for trial until he has had an opportunity of returning, it is assumed by the plaintiff in error that such language prohibits the trial of a person so extradited for any crime committed by him subsequently as well as prior to the surrender, without an opportunity for his return to the other country. The whole question is simply one as to the meaning of the treaty, and we cannot doubt for a single moment what that meaning is.

Much is said by the plaintiff in error as to his right to an asylum as if it inhered in himself. The right is, however, simply provided for by treaty, and must be found therein, so far alone as the criminal is concerned.

The question then is, does either the treaty or convention, by express provision or by inference, provide for a return of the criminal to the surrendering country after his surrender and after a subsequent commission of a crime in the country to which he was surrendered? To ask the question is to answer it. The plaintiff in error contends for the treaty right to leave the country, notwithstanding his commission of the subsequent crime. This we cannot assent to. It is impossible to conceive of representatives of two civilized countries solemnly entering into a treaty of extradition, and therein providing that a criminal surrendered according to demand, for a crime that he has committed, if subsequently to his surrender he is guilty of murder or treason or other crime is, nevertheless, to

have the right guaranteed to him to return unmolested to the country which surrendered him. We can imagine no country, by treaty, as desirous of exacting such a condition of surrender or any country as willing to accept it. When a treaty or statute contains a provision that the party surrendered shall be tried for no other offense until he has had an opportunity to leave the country, the meaning of such a provision is perfectly plain, and must receive a reasonable and sensible construction. The party proceeded against must not be tried for any other offense existing at the time when he was extradited (whether at the time of such extradition it had or had not been discovered), until he shall have had a reasonable time to return to the country from which he was taken, after his trial or other termination of the proceeding. That such privilege should be accorded to one who commits a crime after his surrender to a demanding government lacks all semblance of

reason or sense.

Spear in the second edition of his work on the Law of Extradition says, at page 84, that the party extradited is not "protected against trial for any offenses which he may commit against the receiving government subsequently to his extradition, and while in its custody, or after his discharge therefrom Such a criminal has no asylum, because he never had an asylum within the jurisdiction of the government delivering him, with regard to the crime which he committed since such delivery.

The contention is also without merit that he has, at any rate, the right to a trial to a conclusion of the case for which he was extradited, before he can be tried for a crime subsequently committed. The matter lies within the jurisdiction of the State whose laws he has violated since his extradition, and we cannot see that it is a matter of any interest to the surrendering government.

There is nothing in section 5275, Rev. Stat., supra, which gives the least countenance to the claims of the plaintiff in

error.

The other objections made by him in regard to the person who now has him in custody under the various warrants and processes, copies of which are returned in the record, we regard as unimportant.

As soon as the judgments herein are affirmed the plaintiff in error will, of course, pursuant to the judgment entered upon the verdict of conviction against him, be taken to the state prison in California, provided for in the sentence, and there confined according to law. The orders and judgments in the two cases are

Affirmed.

UNITED STATES ex rel. PARISH v. MACVEAGH,
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA.

No. 111. Argued March 11, 12, 1909. Decided May 17, 1909.

If the reference by Congress to the Secretary of the Treasury to ascertain the amount due to a claimant and pay the same requires the exercise of discretion the courts cannot control his decision, Riverside Oil Company v. Hitchcock, 190 U. S. 316; but where the statute simply requires him to ascertain the amount, according to certain prescribed rules, the duty is administrative; and, the amount being ascertained according to those rules, the courts can by mandamus compel the Secretary to issue his warrant therefor.

The statute involved in this case, referring the ascertainment of the amount due a claimant to the Secretary of the Treasury, construed on the supposition that Congress regarded the controversy as over and that only the amount remained for ascertainment, as any intricate judicial problem would naturally be referred to the judicial tribunals.

The history of the litigation and legislation in regard to the claim of Parish against the United States for damages on contract for ice made in 1863 for use of armies in the field reviewed and held that

under the act of February 17, 1903, c. 559, 32 Stat. 1612, directing the Secretary of the Treasury "to determine and ascertain the full amount which should have been paid to Parish if the contract had been carried out in full without charge or default by either party" and to issue his warrant therefor, no judicial duty devolved upon the Secretary, nor has the Secretary power to determine what was right or proper but only the administrative duty of ascertaining the amount and paying the same; and, the amount having been ascertained, the claimant is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary to issue his warrant therefor.

.

30 App. D. C. 45, reversed.

THIS is a writ of error directed to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court dismissing a petition for mandamus to require Leslie M. Shaw, then Secretary of the Treasury, to issue a draft in favor of the petitioner, plaintiff in error here, for the sum of $181,358.95, in payment of a claim referred to him by an act of Congress, approved February 17, 1903. Shaw, pending the appeal, resigned, and Cortelyou, his successor in office, was made a party in his stead, and subsequently Franklin MacVeagh, becoming Secretary, he was substituted for Cortelyou. We shall call plaintiff in error relator and defendant in error respondent, they having occupied that relation in the trial court.

J. W. Parish, of whose estate relator is executrix, entered into a contract with the United States, as J. W. Parish & Company, to deliver, for the use of the United States medical department at Memphis, St. Louis and Cairo the whole amount of ice required to be consumed during the remainder of the year 1863. The quality of the ice was to be "A No. 1," and the contract stated the prices to be paid at the designated points respectively. On March 25, 1863, Joseph B. Brown, by instruction of the Assistant Surgeon General, issued an order directing Parish to deliver the ice as follows: St. Louis 5,000 tons, Cairo 5,000 tons, Memphis 10,000 tons and Nashville 10,000 tons, "making a total," the order recited, "of 30,000 tons which you have contracted to deliver. The ice to